Talk:Adam Parfrey

Weltanschauung

This leaves off his work for the San Diego Reader, and his recordings with the Tards. Also, some mention should be made of his general weltanshauung, and his (deserved or undeserved) reputation as a crypto-fascist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.69.5.197 (talk) 21:09, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Undeserved. But you get bonus points for the proper use of "weltanshauung." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.254.90 (talk) 04:40, July 6, 2006 (UTC)

"Weltanschauung": lit. "view of the world", but prominent in romanticism and philosophy. Warburg-Institute art-historian Ernst Gombrich was famous for his distaste of the whole concept.

Michael by Goebbels is (as far as I know) not a fascist book. I haven't read it, so may be mistaken. I fear it is boring as hell.--Ralfdetlef (talk) 08:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Apocalypse Culture

That article was deleted? It redirects to this page. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Improved

I have added two new sources for information on Parfrey to improve the article, and included a section regarding controversy surrounding his work. Hopefully this improves it enough to remove the banner at the top? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twarwick666 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I have added 7 additional sources to help improve the article and would also love to see the warning banners removed. However the statement about Adam opposing fundamentalists says a citation is required and I don't think that sentence is useful with a citation so it should either be proven or removed. (CarrieLorraine (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC))

Dark Mission

Hello I am admittedly new to wiki editing and have not grasped all of the protocol. I have engaged in an edit war on the Adam Parfrey wiki page regarding a bad book promotion. I feel that the complaint about not having certain material in Dark Mission's revised edition is a matter of publishing and promoting logistics. Changes in a book between author and publisher happen daily in the publishing business, and the promotion was changed, and thus it is a meaningless issue for a Wikipdedia entry. As a result it's used as a personal attack against the writer and publisher. I have addressed this issue on the talk page of the person I seem to disagree with.

They responded saying "Yes, by all means let's discuss Adam Parfrey's irresponsible promotional tactics here rather than in his talk page. As a published author myself (7 books) I'm perfectly aware of the daily changes in the biz. What is irresponsible is to pretend, for the purposes of promotion, that these changes HAVE NOT HAPPENED. I invite you to inspect my citations. You will see that the false promo is still on the Amazon and Borders pages, nearly TWO YEARS after the decision was made to exclude that chapter. The material is adequately sourced, and relevant to Mr Parfrey's attitude to the readership he's supposed to serve. Ergo I maintain it's wiki-appropriate."

My apologies for not discussing the topic here first. I believe that tardiness of Border and Amazon to reflect requested changes is notorious and happens to just about every single publishing company that exists, and has nothing to do with Adam Parfrey's career. The publishing company in question has its own wiki article page. This appears to be a personal grudge which is not supposed to be part of the wikipedia experience. CarrieLorraine (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You seek to blame Border and Amazon for this atrocity. You are therefore asking intelligent people to believe that the decision not to proceed with the Von Braun chapter was made after the book was released to distributors?? A likely story, CarrieLorraine. Let me try this on you -- another false promo was originally included on Amazon, to the effect that buyers would be given a code enabling them to access better illustrations than were printed in the book. This was later withdrawn because no such code was ever issued to anyone. If that could be withdrawn, why could the other false claim not also have been withdrawn?

I don't know how you would be able to distinguish between a "personal grudge" and an observation by one who follows this branch of the publishing industry and is alert to dishonesty. May I ask whether you yourself have any personal connection with the annoying Mr Parfrey?

I seek consensus to have this material retained. Clearly, CanadianLinuxUser and ItsZippy already support me. Other editors of this page please comment. Cheers. El Ingles (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe the aforementioned users were commenting on the fact that I was not following wiki protocol in deleting the comment without saying why, not the relevance of this issue. I seek consensus to have this material removed on the basis of its low level of relevance to Adam Parfrey's career. Publishers send promotional material to places like Amazon up to a year in advance. Here is a link to a Feral House book that doesn't come out until next May http://www.amazon.com/Future-Primitive-Revisited-John-Zerzan/dp/1936239299/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1322968914&sr=8-1. My issue however is less with the material in question and more with its relevance to Adam Parfrey's career and Wikipedia entry page. Editors please comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarrieLorraine (talk • contribs) 03:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

>>I believe the aforementioned users were commenting on the fact that I was not following wiki protocol in deleting the comment without saying why, not the relevance of this issue.<< Is that so, CanadianLinuxUser and ItsZippy??

>>Publishers send promotional material to places like Amazon up to a year in advance.<< I believe you. That does not in any way address the point I made clearly about that other mendacious promo.

I have no personal grudge against Adam Parfrey. I've never met the man and I'm sure his drinking buddies think he's terrific. I'd still like to know whether you yourself have any personal connection with him. You didn't answer that part.

Considering that the Controversy section includes "Upsetting people is a beautiful thing," I don't see how Parfrey's dishonesty could not be relevant.

Please sign your contributions. Thx. El Ingles (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I met the man briefly at a book conference 3 years ago , I am a fan of his company but my concern here is the relevance of the information on the wikipedia page. CarrieLorraine (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, yes. That's exactly where you and I are at odds. You think lying in order to promote a book is perfectly normal. I don't. I think it's at least mischievous and probably irresponsible. Not to mention ultimately counter-productive, as your pissed-off readers vow never to do business with you again. I sure wish CanadianLinuxUser and ItsZippy would express some opinions. Do you want to solicit their opinions on their talk pages? El Ingles (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The originator of the article was KevinISlaughter (talk). You might try him, too. El Ingles (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Comparing a promo with the table of contents and then making conclusions constitutes original research and is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Gerardw (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Place of birth

Was he born in New York City or New York (state)? If the latter, can someone please prove a city or county of birth? Thanks! Spacini (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Barrow?

I don't know if this profile can be authenticated, but a Quora user going by the name of Adam Parfrey seems to match up with other information about him: https://www.quora.com/profile/Adam-Parfrey

At the time of his last activity, which appears to be approximately two months before his death, he claimed to be living in Barrow. I haven't been able to corroborate anywhere else that he had spent any time in Alaska, so I thought it was interesting.

I almost reported his two answers on Quora as being insincere, joke answers, but I thought I'd do a little research on him first and found it interesting that he seems to be a person of some notoriety.

cluth (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Jewage.org as a source

http://www.jewage.org/wiki/en/Article:Adam_Parfrey_-_Biography

^^Trying to use this as a source is a clear example of Wikipedia citing itself. If you scroll down to the bottom it says "Article source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Parfrey". Heppenstahl (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Autobiography

The memoirs mentioned in the bibliography, Feral Man in a Feral Land, were completed but never published; a biography of Parfrey is currently in the works. 88.98.221.86 (talk) 13:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi

I really doubt this editor will see this, given they jump from account to account every single edit. We have no source that calls him this, and even if we did, most don't, so it wouldn't be WP:DUE weight. We cannot just decide he is, and it is egregious source misrepresentation to say a book says something this negative, and then when confronted with evidence that it doesn't, backpedal and say oh, but it should say that. Okay, who cares, it doesn't! It isn't whitewashing to stick exactly to what reliable sources say, it is the only policy-allowed option. Stop. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Spencer Sunshine

In 2024, respected academic Spencer Sunshine, in his book Neo-Nazi Terrorism and Countercultural Fascism, published by Routledge, settled the question of Adam Parfrey’s long suspected neo-Nazism. Although in his own defense Parfrey had claimed that his mother was Jewish or part-Jewish, Sunshine explicitly clarifies in no uncertain terms that indeed Adam Parfrey was a neo-Nazi activist. ~2025-40713-25 (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

No, he doesn't, as you admit in your own edit summary! At no point does he say explicitly in this book that Parfrey was a neo-Nazi, so we cannot say it. That you want the book to say it, as you have admitted, is of no relevance. And even if he did, it would not be WP:DUE weight or in compliance with MOS:LABEL. If one source calls someone a neo-Nazi but every single other source doesn't, we do not privelege that above the other sources; the totality of the sources on Parfrey do not present him that way, and how are we to determine whether he has "settled the question"? Let the things he has said speak for themself, without engaging in WP:OR or improper labeling, which the article is already doing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2025 (UTC)